Google Glass hits the UK with new 2GB model

Google Glass is now available in the UK, complete with a spec boost to 2GB of RAM, but the promised sub-£300 price-tag is nowhere to be seen.

Google has officially launched its Google Glass wearable computing system in the UK, and in doing so has doubled the memory to 2GB - but the version available now retains its eye-watering early-adopter price-tag.

Formally unveiled in 2013 following considerable teasing, Google Glass offers a fully-fledged Android microcomputer and camera system built into a glasses frame. Connected to a compatible Android handset, the system offers a head-up display above the eyeline of the right eye through which messages can be viewed while also running its own custom applications dubbed Glassware.

When Google first announced Project Glass, it did so with a promise: the retail version of the hardware would cost no more than a mid-range Android smartphone, at around £300 or less. Sadly, the company has yet to make good on its promise - and the UK launch is, make no mistake, not the retail model. Rather, it's an extension of the early adopter scheme, known as the Explorer Programme, first launched in the US and comes with a considerably higher price-tag than first promised: £1,000 with free shade lenses or frames from the Google Play store.

For that, buyers get double the memory of the original US model at 2GB - and that's a move that has early adopters who have paid $1,500 for their 1GB edition upset. Many have responded to Google's announcement by demanding free upgrades to the 2GB model, while others claim the original device's low memory leads to unusable slowness when using the latest software with more than one Glassware app running. Others have taken offence at Google's claims that software improvements available to all have boosted the average battery life of the device - which needs recharging daily - by 20 per cent, claiming to have experienced an equal or greater decrease in runtime.

More details, and the order link if you've got a spare £1,000 burning a hole in your pocket, are available on the Google Play store.

Share This News Story

47 Comments

Price 100% expected. No reason that Glas would suddenly get a dramatic price drop for no particular reason.
It's not a retail device, so unless you're actively developing an application for glass or a process that uses Glass then you should probably not be buying it (unless you have £1000 to burn).

Originally Posted by edziebaPrice 100% expected. No reason that Glas would suddenly get a dramatic price drop for no particular reason.

Did you read the part of the article where Google promised it would sell Glass for less than £300 when it "became a retail product?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by edzieba

It's not a retail device, so unless you're actively developing an application for glass or a process that uses Glass then you should probably not be buying it (unless you have £1000 to burn).

There's the rub. When Google was limiting Explorer applications to pre-invited people with $2K to burn, you could argue that it wasn't a retail product. Now, anyone can go on to Google Play and buy one. How is that not retail? If it is retail, which it clearly is, why isn't it the sub-£300 price Google originally promised?

On one hand, well fine, you pay that sort of money for a widget, you know what you're getting into.

On a more general level, this irritates me in much the same way as the Elite: Dangerous "premium beta" release, which is - er - not that great. It's OK, it has potential, but it's £100 for something that isn't done yet, which is an absurdity. I think the phrase "premium beta", which is what Google Glass is at this point, is an oxymoron - but it's becoming popular, even common.

At some point this sort of bad feeling is why people didn't, for a long time, release stuff 'till it was done.

It was so much simpler when product availibilty was limited (and/or free for software) while in development. These days, however, companies have learnt to take full advantage of consumers eagerness to try new products ASAP by charging a premium for late-beta/pre-release/"early access" versions, and who can blame them?

Originally Posted by ImpatienceThere's a thin line though.. Because the companies that deliver bad products (even in beta) get a bad name. And eventually they'll be the worst off when public opinions change on buying beta's

Sure, and for that reason I'm sure the good companies make sure the products they sell, whether in beta/pre-release/early access or final, won't disappoint.

Originally Posted by edziebaAnyone can go to Farnell (or the manufacturer) and order an FPGA development kit. Those sure as hell aren't retail products though!

Bzzt. "Development kit." Also, last I checked Farnell (and the manufacturers in question) are B2B suppliers, not B2C. Are you seriously telling me Google Play is B2B?

Google Play is a retail outlet. Google Glass is sold through Google Play to consumers. Ergo, Google Play is a retail, consumer product. Quod erat demonstrandum.

EDIT: I fear you misunderstand what a retail product is, too. An Arduino is a development board. It is sold in Maplin, a high-street retailer. Ergo, the Arduino is a retail product - one aimed at developers. Bricks are also a retail product when I buy them from Wickes; they don't get to be some special it's-not-retail-really category just because they're not a house yet.

The final nail in your coffin, however, comes from Google itself. The expensive Google Glass Explorer Edition is, as the name implies, aimed at "Explorers."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Google Play

Who are Glass Explorers?
From chefs to cyclists, Glass Explorers are the first to make, move and marvel through Glass. They're bold and inspiring and they're helping shape the future of Glass.

This isn't a development platform, although I would imagine at least some people are buying them with a view to writing their own Glassware. Google itself says it's aimed at everyone from "chefs to cyclists," and by extension people whose job titles don't begin with C. These are end-users. Early adopters, yes, but they're still end users buying a product to use from a retail outlet. That makes Google Glass a retail product; just one that is distinctly overpriced, given Google's promise of a sub-£300 launch price. If Google hadn't said anything about pricing Glass to compete with a mid-range Android smartphone, I wouldn't be making such a fuss now about the retail launch - and this is the retail launch, make no mistake - being more than three times that price.

Originally Posted by Yadda"By offering the pre-retail version of Glass on the Play Store, we hope to give people who don't want to wait for the retail version the opportunity to try Glass now."

Except that my entire argument is that regardless of what Google's PR department might claim, what is up on the Google Play store right now is not a "pre-retail version of Glass;" it's the retail version.

Thought experiment: if I build a Thing, and I put said Thing in Argos, and people buy said Thing, can I claim said Thing is "a pre-retail version," or does the fact I have put the Thing for sale in a retail store negate that argument?

Originally Posted by jrs77I don't care what the price.... I'll simply punch everyone in the face, whose wearing one of these while looking in my direction.

Same I do with people pointing their phones at me.

We should hang a government health warning around your neck when you leave the house. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth HalfacreeThought experiment: if I build a Thing, and I put said Thing in Argos, and people buy said Thing, can I claim said Thing is "a pre-retail version," or does the fact I have put the Thing for sale in a retail store negate that argument?

Not sure. What i want to know is who is going to buy something from a 1982 Antarctic research station, especially seeing the grizzly way those researchers meet their maker.

Originally Posted by Gareth HalfacreeDid you read the part of the article where Google promised it would sell Glass for less than £300 when it "became a retail product?"

Gareth, where did you see Google make a promise regarding the retail price?

From your original 2013 article, that retail price figure sounds more like a "hope" than a "promise":

Quote:

.
Google Glass Price and Release Date
Thus far, Google has not indicated a timescale for a full retail release of Project Glass, except to say that it hopes to have the device on the open market by the end of the year - at which point, it is hoped, it will cost closer to that of a mid-range Android smartphone than the laptop-esque $1,500 price tag the Explorer Edition fetches.

Originally Posted by GlixI hereby declare you are not allowed to look at me or read a description of me. You have to ask me first.

:p

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssj12When out in public you should not have any expectation of privacy.

Where I live there's a law that grants me all rights to pictures of myself, aslong as I don't state otherwise signing off my rights in a contract.

So if someone makes a documentary in a public place and happens to film me - even, if I'm only seen in the background! - while doing so, I can then ask the filmmaker to delete all video-material where I happen to be in the picture.

And yes, this was ruled by court exactly as pictured in the above example.

These rights are aswell the reason, why cameras in the car are prohibited (like all those videos you see taken in russian traffic and posted to youtube), and why you need special permission to place surveillance-cameras in public space. The tapes of surveillance-cameras in general have to be deleted after 48 hours where I'm living.

Make fun of it all you want, but there's lot's of people who think of their privacy as a very high good and protect it by laws like mentioned. Not even the police is allowed to follow me and take pictures without a warrant. Private investigators need special permissions aswell.
I can actually declare any video, sound or image in a court as dismissable, if taken without my personal, special permission or a warrant.

Wearers of Google Glass, who are basically suspect to constantly filming and taking pictures in public places need to understand these rules. And after that, it should be no surprise to them, if they face open hostility while wearing these things, getting thrown out of restaurants etc.

With a smartphone or camera, people are atleast somewhat aware, when others are pointing at them maybe taking a picture, but with Google Glass you only need to look in my direction, which basically comes down to pointing a camera at me.

So yeah, while wearing Google Glass you should ask permission to look at me.

Originally Posted by jrs77Where I live there's a law that grants me all rights to pictures of myself, aslong as I don't state otherwise signing off my rights in a contract.

So if someone makes a documentary in a public place and happens to film me - even, if I'm only seen in the background! - while doing so, I can then ask the filmmaker to delete all video-material where I happen to be in the picture.

And yes, this was ruled by court exactly as pictured in the above example.

These rights are aswell the reason, why cameras in the car are prohibited (like all those videos you see taken in russian traffic and posted to youtube), and why you need special permission to place surveillance-cameras in public space. The tapes of surveillance-cameras in general have to be deleted after 48 hours where I'm living.

Make fun of it all you want, but there's lot's of people who think of their privacy as a very high good and protect it by laws like mentioned. Not even the police is allowed to follow me and take pictures without a warrant. Private investigators need special permissions aswell.
I can actually declare any video, sound or image in a court as dismissable, if taken without my personal, special permission or a warrant.

Wearers of Google Glass, who are basically suspect to constantly filming and taking pictures in public places need to understand these rules. And after that, it should be no surprise to them, if they face open hostility while wearing these things, getting thrown out of restaurants etc.

With a smartphone or camera, people are atleast somewhat aware, when others are pointing at them maybe taking a picture, but with Google Glass you only need to look in my direction, which basically comes down to pointing a camera at me.

So yeah, while wearing Google Glass you should ask permission to look at me.

If there are so many laws against taking someones picture why do you need to resort to violence? In the UK you can legally defend yourself if attacked but there is a limit called "Reasonable Force", your not in the UK but wouldn't the law in Finland consider hitting someone just because they took your picture "Beyond reasonable force"?

You had better not come to the UK, especially London as there are tourists taking pictures everywhere you go and you might find yourself a bit outnumbered if you try and hit them all and you would also probably be arrested for assault, there are also more CCTV cameras watching you than you can count, good luck hitting them ;)

Originally Posted by YaddaGareth, where did you see Google make a promise regarding the retail price? From your original 2013 article, that retail price figure sounds more like a "hope" than a "promise":

You need to go back further than that: Project Glass, as it was known then, was first unveiled in 2012. I wrote about it for Expert Reviews. I draw your attention to the final paragraph:

One thing Google isn't saying is when the technology will be mature enough to reach retail channels, although the R&D team is far along enough in its work to estimate the cost of the device at between $250 and $600 (around £157 to £377 excluding tax,) making it no more expensive than a mid-range smartphone.

Those figures were straight from the Google press release: $250 to $600 when it hits retail. "Promise" may have been a bit strong, but the figures don't lie: the current retail model costs nearly three times Google's highest original projection. Bad show, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrs77Where I live there's a law that grants me all rights to pictures of myself, aslong as I don't state otherwise signing off my rights in a contract.

I'm no expert in Finnish law, but I'm willing to bet there's a law that says you can't punch people in the face too. Wonder which law would trump which in a court setting? I'm not putting my money on the "but he might have been taking my photo" defence, put it that way.

Originally Posted by Gareth HalfacreeYou need to go back further than that: Project Glass, as it was known then, was first unveiled in 2012. I wrote about it for Expert Reviews. I draw your attention to the final paragraph:

Those figures were straight from the Google press release: $250 to $600 when it hits retail. "Promise" may have been a bit strong, but the figures don't lie: the current retail model costs nearly three times Google's highest original projection. Bad show, really.

I see, cheers. I still think they mean the retail-retail version, not the pre-retail-retail version.

Originally Posted by UmbraIf there are so many laws against taking someones picture why do you need to resort to violence? In the UK you can legally defend yourself if attacked but there is a limit called "Reasonable Force", your not in the UK but wouldn't the law in Finland consider hitting someone just because they took your picture "Beyond reasonable force"?

You had better not come to the UK, especially London as there are tourist taking pictures everywhere you go and you might find yourself a bit outnumbered if you try and hit them all and you would also probably be arrested for assault, there are also more CCTV cameras watching you than you can count, good luck hitting them ;)

I get the feeling jrs77 was joking about the hitting people comment.
Maybe we could moony anyone wearing Glass, no wait... we can't do that because of indecent exposure. How about we all carry around cartoon masks and put them on when we see someone with Glass, or does that get you arrested nowadays too?

On a more serious note though our privacy laws are in bad need of reform (IMHO), what with cameras on phones, Googles Glass, and drones capable of flying above private property and filming anything they see, soon we won't be able to get dressed in the morning without fear that someone maybe filming us Well maybe not me as it ain't a pretty site :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by YaddaI see, cheers. I still think they mean the retail-retail version, not the pre-retail-retail version.

Isn't something retail when it's being sold to the end-user, in this case i would say Google is selling it to the people who use it.

EDIT: Have you got a source to Finnish law that states you must obtain permission from someone who features in a photo (who is not the main subject of the photo i.e. in the background) in a public space?

Originally Posted by SpreadieIt's also increases the likelihood of a hilarious youtube video of you getting knocked onto your arse when the Google Glass wearer turns out to be a better fighter than you.

Originally Posted by Corky42Isn't something retail when it's being sold to the end-user, in this case i would say Google is selling it to the people who use it.

Did you miss the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment? :)

Anyway, I do think people are getting too hung-up on one word here. Google have said this isn't the finished version, which is obviously the one they were referring to when they said "retail version" back then.

Originally Posted by veatoEDIT: Have you got a source to Finnish law that states you must obtain permission from someone who features in a photo (who is not the main subject of the photo i.e. in the background) in a public space?

Originally Posted by veatoEDIT: Have you got a source to Finnish law that states you must obtain permission from someone who features in a photo (who is not the main subject of the photo i.e. in the background) in a public space?

That's the Finnish equivalent of the Data Protection Act, and like said Act has no application to private citizens. "Tämä laki ei koske henkilötietojen käsittelyä, jonka luonnollinen henkilö suorittaa yksinomaan henkilökohtaisiin tai niihin verrattaviin tavanomaisiin yksityisiin tarkoituksiinsa." Translated via Google, that means "This Act does not apply to processing of personal data by a natural person of a purely personal or comparable to conventional private purposes," which I'm interpreting as "This Act does not apply to the processing of personal data (as defined in said Act) by an individual for purely personal or comparable private purposes."

In other words: yes, I can take a photo of you in public without your consent, even if you're immediately recognisable from it. No, I can't sell it to an image library without your consent. That's pretty much the same law as the UK; otherwise they'd have to arrest every tourist taking a photo in Finland, 'cos if I take a picture of my wife and daughter at a scenic location I'm almost guaranteed to capture multiple other individuals in the shot - even though that wasn't my intent.

So no, there's no law in Finland that prevents a private individual taking pictures in a public place for their own non-commercial purposes. There certainly isn't one that justifies assault as a response.

It's the finnish law of privacy protection, which prohibits collecting/saving/publishing/etc any information abuot a person, that could identify said person.
You have to have permission to handle any information that could identify a person.

Furthermore, you're basically publishing said information once this information is transfered to the cloud-storage (you can't control access to it), which is even more prohibited, by the law.

So when are you going to take on the NSA and GCHQ? And I suppose it's alright for Finish tourists to take pictures of people in other countries but not for tourists if they come to Finland.

Originally Posted by Gareth HalfacreeThat's the Finnish equivalent of the Data Protection Act, and like said Act has no application to private citizens. "Tämä laki ei koske henkilötietojen käsittelyä, jonka luonnollinen henkilö suorittaa yksinomaan henkilökohtaisiin tai niihin verrattaviin tavanomaisiin yksityisiin tarkoituksiinsa." Translated via Google, that means "This Act does not apply to processing of personal data by a natural person of a purely personal or comparable to conventional private purposes," which I'm interpreting as "This Act does not apply to the processing of personal data (as defined in said Act) by an individual for purely personal or comparable private purposes."

In other words: yes, I can take a photo of you in public without your consent, even if you're immediately recognisable from it. No, I can't sell it to an image library without your consent. That's pretty much the same law as the UK; otherwise they'd have to arrest every tourist taking a photo in Finland, 'cos if I take a picture of my wife and daughter at a scenic location I'm almost guaranteed to capture multiple other individuals in the shot - even though that wasn't my intent.

So no, there's no law in Finland that prevents a private individual taking pictures in a public place for their own non-commercial purposes. There certainly isn't one that justifies assault as a response.

You got further than I did, not all the subjects are translated to English and I didn't think of Google translate

Table near the top lists by country whether consent is required to take a picture of a person in a public place, publish the picture and publish the picture commercially.

More detail given further down.

For example, Finland, France and Germany:

Quote:

Finland
Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent in many cases
Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent, if the use is promotional
There is no specific law about photographing people or publishing the images; some of the issues are very vaguely regulated.

Taking a picture of a person in a public space does not require consent. Offices, factories etcetera and fenced yards of these are not regarded as public space, even when visible from outside, but are less protected than areas defined as private (homes, tents, private yards, dressing rooms etcetera).

Publishing pictures of a person in a public space may require consent, unless the person clearly is not the main subject of the image and the picture does not cause damage, suffering or despise to the person in the picture. Photographs of public events or regular life in the streets should be unproblematic. Photos of people who are of public interest (famous politicians, artists, sportsmen) and who are carrying out their public duties or going about their usual work may be published without consent.

An image of an identifiable person may not be used for promotion (in advertisements or similar), even if not identifiable for a stranger. Commercial use is not different from non-commercial use, neither in such cases nor otherwise.

France
Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see explanation below)
Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Article 9 of French Civil Code states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private life”.[34]
This is generally considered to include one's right to the own image, even if it is taken in a public space.[35][36]
According to case law and legal doctrine, photographs taken of (one or more) individuals require authorisation.[37] Just taking someone's photo without consent (in private or public space) can be considered as an invasion of privacy and gives them the right to claim for cessation of the wrongful conduct. Everyone is legally protected from unauthorised distribution, publication or commercialisation of a picture of himself. The permission has to be interpreted in a strict way (only to the extent expressly consented to by the subject).[36]
It is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of[36]
public figures performing their public functions or activities (not in private life)[38],
people shown in a larger group (without distinction of one or more individuals),
people who are present in a public location (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),
people related to news events of public interest or public information purposes.
Although it is usually considered to be superior, the right to one's privacy and own image is also not absolute and shall be balanced especially with the right to freedom of expression.[39] This can be of certain relevance for professional photographers and artists.[40]
There are special rules and criminal sanctions if minors are involved.[35][41]

Germany
Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not normally require consent if done by individuals for personal use only. Collection, storage, processing and distribution by org, corp or public authorities is subject to data protection laws and requires consent with very few exceptions.
Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent[42], unless it is a Person der Zeitgeschichte (public figure)[43] (see other minor exceptions below)
Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Apart from the already mentioned there is a small number of additional exceptions to the above statement.
Publishing or propagating the image does not normally require consent:
Picture of a landscape or locality where the person is an insignificant or coincidental element (Beiwerk).
Picture of a public assembly/convention, parade or similar event that includes a person (non-prominently).
If distribution or exhibition serves a higher artistic interest.
Also in these cases, it is not allowed to publish or distribute the picture without permission if this may affect the subject's legitimate interests.

To summarise, in Finland...

"Taking a picture of a person in a public space does not require consent."

"Publishing pictures of a person in a public space may require consent, unless the person clearly is not the main subject of the image and the picture does not cause damage, suffering or despise to the person in the picture. Photographs of public events or regular life in the streets should be unproblematic. "

So, as long as you're in a public space, not the main subject of the photograph and not being portrayed unfavourably, there's not a lot you can do about it.

But no doubt our beloved police forces, will be queuing to get the latest technology. To justify why they sit on their bottoms looking at previous recorded data. Hence the high price, they know their market's. :p

Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.